> 2014-11-12 10:28 GMT+01:00 Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org>: >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> OK. Makes sense. The unstripped upstream can then live in an > non-namespaced branch if needed (this is not my usual workflow but should be possible). > On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Mathieu Parent wrote: >> Maybe a short note would be good then? (but I don't know how to write it). > > I suggest this: > > --- a/web/deps/dep14.mdwn > +++ b/web/deps/dep14.mdwn > @@ -230,6 +230,17 @@ non-patchable data), you can do so but you should then document > this in `debian/README.source` along with some explanations of the tool to use to build the package. > > +About repacked upstream sources > +------------------------------- > + > +When the upstream sources needs to be repacked (for example to drop some +non-DFSG compliant files), then the branches and tags under the +`upstream/` prefix should actually contain the repacked sources. + > +How the problematic files are pruned does not matter. What matters is that +what is stored in the `upstream/*` namespace are the sources that package +maintainers are effectively using. > + > Managing debian/changelog > ------------------------- > > > Does this meet your expectation? > > Cheers, Should we add a word or two (some warning/reminder) how to handle removing non-free content, especially if (Debian thinks) that the removed files are not distributeable? To avoid that we actucally distribute them in some branch without recognizing. -- tobi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/4dafed01424b46f00229d4e894002d66.squir...@isengard.geekcommandos.com
